Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!telecom-request From: IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion Message-ID: Date: 9 Jun 91 02:03:00 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 67 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 437, Message 3 of 8 In Telecom Digest V. 11 # Rob Stampfli says: > I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. I have tried very diligently > to get an answer to this question (not related to the MCI offer, > incidently) and the best that I could ascertain was that it is far > from a clearly defined point of contract law. I may morally agree > with what you say, but I don't believe it would make a strong case in > a court of law. I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER ... But that doesn't stop me from shooting my keyboard off..... While a mere undergraduate at the fine institution that hosts this excellent forum, I took a course in Business Law (so named). In that course, I was instructed, and confirmed in the tome of all such great knowledge (The textbook by Weast), that, according to the Uniform Commercial Code: In cases where the payment of a bill or other such compensation for a contract is IN DISPUTE, one can indicate on the check, (or include a statement attached to some other item of value so designated), something to the effect that the check, (or item) is payment for all debts, past and present. If the party owed payment accepts the check or item (a pen was given as example), then its over, they got paid, and that's that. Note the two sections in all caps. I'm not a lawyer, I took that course ten years ago, and the part about dispute is the key. If there was no legitimate dispute due to variations in the terms of the contract, then you're gonna look mighty foolish in court trying to use a cheap device to wheedle out of the deal. That I think gets at the heart of the matter. Advice on the clock: Don't try this with commercial contracts, Holmes, unless you really know what you're doing. I would guess that with the MCI slam check, a judge may attempt to simply reach the status quo, i.e., they give you control of your phone service back, and you give them their $20 back. Andy Jacobson or [Moderator's Note: As you noted, 'satisfaction amd accord' is a very tricky area. Without some legitimate written correspondence outlining your DISPUTE, and something from the other side indicating a willingness to accept partial payment as full satisfaction, the court is quite likely to rule that you unjustly enriched yourself at the expense of MCI. Remember also that when remittances go to a lockbox, the courts have said more than once that a minimum-wage employee for the bank processing hundreds of checks daily as agent for the bank's customers cannot bind the bank's customer to any agreement. A lawyer here in Chicago tried that stunt with Diner's Club: he owed them a thousand dollars on his bill, and sent them ten dollars marked 'payment in full'. It went through the lockbox, and later on, Diner's tried to collect the balance, eventually placing him with an agency when he kept resisting further payment. Finally, Diner's returned his ten dollars and sued him for the full amount. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee found out and the guy damn near lost his license to practice law here. The ARDC told him, "you are an attorney and you know better than that ... you don't stiff your creditors and abuse some eighteen-year old kid working for Diner's lockbox remittance processing center." ARDC complaints about judges and attornies here go directly to the Supreme Court for administrative review, and the court accepted the ARDC ruling completely, especially since the guy was an attorney. PAT]